Sign in Subscribe
Nuclear proliferation

Legitimacy of US Strikes on Iran Under International Law

Strategic Insights

— 1 min read

US President Donald Trump justified the bombing of Iran's three nuclear facilities by citing a "stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror." However, this justification is questionable under international law. Two key aspects of self-defence were invoked: the right of self-defence when a state is attacked by another, as outlined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, and anticipatory or preemptive self-defence. However, there is no evidence of recent Iranian attacks on the US, and the IAEA has stated that Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons capability. Furthermore, the Bush doctrine, which justifies preemptive self-defence, was widely discredited in 2003 when no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was found. The strikes have set a concerning precedent, allowing other states to launch anticipatory or preemptive strikes against other nations at any time. Australia's Foreign Minister Penny Wong has come out in support of the US action, but Labor governments should be discussing the legality of the US strikes.

Key Takeaways:

  • The US bombing of Iran's three nuclear facilities has raised questions about its legitimacy under international law.
  • The US justification for the strikes includes self-defence and anticipatory or preemptive self-defence.
  • However, there is no evidence of recent Iranian attacks on the US.
  • The IAEA has stated that Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons capability.
  • The Bush doctrine, which justifies preemptive self-defence, was widely discredited in 2003.
  • The strikes have set a concerning precedent, allowing other states to launch anticipatory or preemptive strikes against other nations at any time.
  • Australia's Foreign Minister Penny Wong has come out in support of the US action.
  • The Albanese government should be discussing the legality of the US strikes at the United Nations.
  • International law requires any state using force outside its borders to prove that there is an imminent threat, and the right of self-defence does not permit anticipatory or preemptive strikes in order to neutralise a threat.

Read more